Actually, I think the niches are more narrowly defined that you seem to think. However I think the larger problem, and the one for which you have still failed to offer a solution approach, is that most people are not enthusiastic about switching OSes.
Perhaps I should reword the problem in terms of projection? People who like to learn new things are often too quick to assume everyone is also eager, whereas I've reached the conclusion that most people simply don't want to be bothered. Then again, I could be projecting, too, insofar as I am not nearly as quick as I used to be in learning many new things.
Mona Lisa Overdrive also talks a lot about the shape of cyberspace, which now maps to visualization of various aspects of the Internet. In epistemological terms, I think that "expertise" involves (1) an understanding the overall shape of the solution space, (2) specific knowledge of many data points that span significant portions of the solution space, and (3) skills in applying the expertise to solve new problems.
Various ways to describe the problem, but I'll reduce it to a question: If Linux is so superior, why is it a niche OS?
In terms of solution approaches, I think the reasons involve bad financial models. Which leads us back to rms (Stallman) himself. He has no deep understanding of money. I theorize that it's a mix of his extremist philosophy, his tenured status that insulates him from monetary concerns, and some major confusions about freedom versus free. Also something about programming as meta-language and level slippage?
My favored solution approach would be the CSB (Charity Share Brokerage) financial model that would let more people be vested in the success of Linux based on the features and services that they are actually willing to pay for. I'm not saying that everyone needs to pay for everything. That's Microsoft's model, with special emphasis on the features the pesky little users don't even want. More like $10 at a time for a charity share, and it doesn't matter if there are lots of free riders as long as the costs are covered--and that includes fair compensation for the programmers who do the actual work (and who are often weakly vested to boot, as things stand now).
ADSAuPR, atAJG, but I'll note that rms actually asked me a question that contributed to the development of the CSB idea. That was about 15 years ago and I still think it was an accident. He didn't care about money at the time and I haven't seen any evidence of his worrying about real-world money ever since.
Or even better if you have a better (AKA more practical or creative) solution approach. Even less evidence of that on Slashdot these years.
I can't tell if you are joking with some form of sarcasm or just ACKing my comment.
However, I do not think that would be a solution approach that would lead anywhere. In the specific context of Slashdot, I think the two most important approaches would be (1) Make the dimensions properly orthogonal and symmetric and (2) Make moderation reflexive and symmetric with a multidimensional form of karma. In more general contexts, I think the broadest brush I've painted with is currently called MEPR. One version is at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik....
Weird thought of the morning is that programming is a kind of meta-thinking. Leading to the conclusion that I was only a second tier programmer because I am too meta or not meta enough, or perhaps because I lack sufficient control when my thoughts move between levels. I've definitely convinced that the first tier programmers I've worked for and with are more clear and focused in their meta-thinking. (I see it as a related topic, though I'm not sure how to express the closeness of the relationship... I feel it, but I can't say it. Another aspect of my zen collapse?)
LOCK THEM UP!!! LOCK THEM UP!! LOCK THEM UP!! LOCK THEM UP!!.....
Excellent example of the brokenness of Slashdot's moderation. I can see the selfish (even authoritarian) basis for the "I disagree" negative mods, but what's the justification for insightful in such a tiny joke? A "funny" mod or two for the satirical aspects might have been justified, but I don't think nepotism, even flagrant nepotism, calls for the chanting mob.
However it does remind me of the parody protest I'd like to see, based on the chant of "Lock kids up, LOCK KIDS UP!" Obviously it would be a parody of a Trump rally, but as part of a protest against child separation, especially for asylum seekers. I think for maximum impact, the protesters should chant in "Trump face", with the short video building to a crescendo of rage before dissolving into mad screams. Each Trump face could be as simple as a piece of paper. I'd recommend an angry shouty closeup of Trump's face. Try to forget the image of a mob of enraged little Trumps!
Well done, I think that such a video might go viral. It might even cause some people to stop and think "Do I really want to be part of that sort of thing?"
The bottom line is that it is legal to seek asylum. Be quite amusing if Trump's supporters want to flee in panic because the next president turns out to be a Democratic anti-Trump with Trumpian tendencies, only to discover that Canada and Mexico have closed the borders and will separate them from their children if they seek asylum.
No, this particular kind of lawsuit wasn't predicted by Popper circa 1945, but it's a great example of how it works in action.
I actually think Trump's so-called free-speech executive order is a slightly more sophisticated attack on tolerance. The real idea is to make is easier for intolerant people to attack tolerance. NOT to suggest that #PresidentTweety possesses the sophistication. The executive order was probably dictated over Trump's iPhone by Steve Bannon, that poster child of intolerance.
Next amusing thought of the day: Steve King is actively campaigning for Pence's job in 2020.
By the way, there are a number of cow-related Twitter accounts you might want to follow. https://twitter.com/search?q=%... is obvious, but if you search on Twitter for "DevinNunes" you'll see an entire herd of them.
Really, if they want to make something optional, how about a low-security airline for people who are sick and tired of all that anti-terrorist BS? Only catch is your clothes travel separately.
I just can't get over the sheer gall of it. Boeing was worried about it to the point that they developed two safety mechanisms. And then didn't enable them? How about making the safety features mandatory with an option to pay more to turn them off? You know, for the pilots and passengers who want the extra thrills.
Thanks for reminding me about the time I was using fake headers for the same purpose... That was with a plugin for Firefox, but I should research the Opera situation to see if I can understand what is going on. These days I mostly just want things to work without a lot of tweaking. (And if I'm actually seriously concerned about privacy, there's always Tor. Probably layers and levels of secrecy and anonymity beyond that, too.)
Hard for me to be sure, but I think Abagnale was invited to talk to our sociology (criminology?) class just after he got out of prison in America, probably circa 1977. It was around the time he was setting up his consulting business, I guess. I've always believed that "consultant" hides a multitude of sins, but I don't think that's the reason.
Hmm... Just thought of something I can check. I see. Quite possible it was the fall of 1977, but I really don't remember enough details to be sure. Though I can think of two people who might remember...
Yes, but don't forget the politicians saved MILLIONS of dollars by cutting the FAA budget to the bone! So efficient! The government is ALWAYS a waste of money!
Actually, I think the worst part of it is that the FAKE Republicans will now start blaming REAL president Obama for yet another failure of the government they have been sabotaging for years. Or is it worse that they will now insist that they can't let Boeing get the death penalty it deserves because of overriding political and nationalistic considerations.
Interesting post and deserved the mod points, though I'm unsure if either "interesting" or "insightful" really captures it.
I think you should have included the politicians who play political games with the funding of government agencies that have critical functions for public health. In addition, their pro-profit pro-cancer legislation (for the sake of bigger bribes) creates too-big-to-fail situations. I think Boeing itself has earned a corporate death penalty for the second crash, but it will never happen because of the political (and nationalistic) considerations.
My perverse solution approach involves pro-freedom anti-greedom taxation. But that's enough time for Slashdot, so for now I just bid you ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Extremely rare case. Not only were you modded into visibility, but you have a legitimate reason for anonymity.
If you were blowing the whistle on an actual settings page, your reason would be impeccable, but I have to peck at the satire defense and even lament that I was lucky to see the joke.
I think the google should have claimed they are just protecting the Chinese users of their services. After all, the Chinese are surely working on ways to track the ads people respond to. The google cannot absolutely guarantee the security of the clicks on ads.
If they were as cunning as they are accused of being, the Chinese government would encourage the google to show the VPN ads--after setting up some facade VPN companies and arranging for them to advertise heavily while targeting Chinese users. Much easier to collect the information the police want from the other end of that particular crime.
Only mention of "solution" in the discussion (before mine), but no details. Guessing from the context, but I am willing to wager some quatloos it was NOT a real solution and I would like to see more details. Actually, from reading your comment again, it is not clear that the google actually offered any pretense of a solution, which could certainly explain why you didn't offer a link to it.
So the corporate cancer google has become a monopoly, eh? What a shocking problem. Not.
In solution terms:
(1) The google can divide itself into competing companies.
(2) The parts improve faster because of REAL competition.
(3) PROFIT!
For simplicity, I left out a few intermediary steps. For example, the part about how we would get more freedom by having more choice (which can be implemented even if many (or even most) people are too lazy to be more free). Also the step where the parent holding company (Alphabet, which already exists) can keep most of the enlarged profits as long as the competing companies honor their "Chinese walls".
Now to search the discussion to see if there are any constructive solutions on display. First let me adjust my expectations a bit lower. Down to the level of today's Slashdot...
Now I'm confused? I use Opera every week or two for a website that will not work in my region with Firefox or Chrome or Safari, but Opera is still working? The article says that Opera removed the VPN last year?
I feel like I shouldn't have to clarify my position on this, but...
I am NOT attacking the FAA. I think that there is a real need for external moderators, or you might prefer to call them honest referees, to keep track of how the players are playing the game. In the game of business for profit, that means the moderators (or referees) aren't driven by the profit motive uber alles. The FAA has clearly failed to keep Boeing from cheating on the rules in this case, and lots of people are dead as a result.
Part of my solution approach would be to increase competition and freedom. Less massive profit and fewer industry-dominating players and more controlled risks. The rate of progress might be a toss-up. I think more competition will lead to faster progress, but there are cases where huge research projects are required. Might be a legitimate need for some big government assistance in those cases, but in general I think smaller government is good, too, though the referee needs to be at least as strong as the strongest players. Yet another argument for smaller corporations so we can have smaller government.
Lots of similar comments in my earlier writings...
Thanks again, but you make it sound like too much trouble. I've pretty much trained myself to be extra careful around the <Backspace> key on Slashdot. Unfortunately, I've lost my habit of frequent saves to the clipboard...
To me it keeps coming back to the underlying problem of Slashdot's lack of a viable financial model. Hard to fund software maintenance or improvements in that situation. I'd put some of my money behind the charity share brokerage, if only the option existed.
I'm not sure about parts of your description, but I am pretty sure that it involves the focus getting outside of the input window. Nothing to do with either keypad (though I suspect the mouse), and I am using Firefox. The first thing I do when it happens is to attempt to return forward, but no can do. Pretty sure I'm using the classic view of Slashdot, but not sure how to check that.
Are you perhaps suggesting that I can recover the lost draft by some other method? For example, I haven't tried playing with the history. Maybe it appears as a recently closed tab, even though the tab of the lost information appears to remain open?
After accidentally confirming that the <Backspace> bug still exists on Slashdot and that it can destroy your draft without a trace...
My initial thought was that this angle was politically motivated. (I see that an AC may have opened the topic, but I don't care enough to forcibly open the AC's subject.) So I checked the schedule for the certification of the 737 MAX and confirmed that it happened in 2017, but early enough to blame on REAL president Obama. As long as you ignore any questions about FAKE Republicans (AKA Bolsheviks) working to kneecap Obama's entire administration from Day One. Saving money is a great excuse and even better when you can blame a Democrat for any little disasters that result.
I do think the FAA shares some of the blame, but (1) There's plenty of blame to go around, and (2) This appears to be the kind of software problem that is extremely difficult to trap and debug. At least it looks like complicated interactions between two systems that were supposed to be independent.
If it is a politically motivated angle of attack (not to be confused with the airplanes' angle of attack before their crashes), then I am curious who thought it up. But even if #PresidentTweety tweeted it, I'm sure someone gave it to him via his iPhone. Best input channel for most of his bad ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think the niches are more narrowly defined that you seem to think. However I think the larger problem, and the one for which you have still failed to offer a solution approach, is that most people are not enthusiastic about switching OSes.
Perhaps I should reword the problem in terms of projection? People who like to learn new things are often too quick to assume everyone is also eager, whereas I've reached the conclusion that most people simply don't want to be bothered. Then again, I could be projecting, too, insofar as I am not nearly as quick as I used to be in learning many new things.
"Fake moos" from the fake moderators, eh? Thanks for proving my point.
(I confess it took me a minute to get the joke. Think about it in the context of #PresidentTweety's great enemies of the state.)
The article mentions Gibson's character Johnny Mnemonic (which also used to be the BBS handle of Mike Godwin of the eponymous law). Just now I'm almost done with Gibson's Mona Lisa Overdrive © 1989, which has a huge memory and computing device (the Aleph in an external package. However, I think this novel was written long after Johnny Mnemonic appeared (because jm was using the handle in the mid-80s).
Mona Lisa Overdrive also talks a lot about the shape of cyberspace, which now maps to visualization of various aspects of the Internet. In epistemological terms, I think that "expertise" involves (1) an understanding the overall shape of the solution space, (2) specific knowledge of many data points that span significant portions of the solution space, and (3) skills in applying the expertise to solve new problems.
Various ways to describe the problem, but I'll reduce it to a question: If Linux is so superior, why is it a niche OS?
In terms of solution approaches, I think the reasons involve bad financial models. Which leads us back to rms (Stallman) himself. He has no deep understanding of money. I theorize that it's a mix of his extremist philosophy, his tenured status that insulates him from monetary concerns, and some major confusions about freedom versus free. Also something about programming as meta-language and level slippage?
My favored solution approach would be the CSB (Charity Share Brokerage) financial model that would let more people be vested in the success of Linux based on the features and services that they are actually willing to pay for. I'm not saying that everyone needs to pay for everything. That's Microsoft's model, with special emphasis on the features the pesky little users don't even want. More like $10 at a time for a charity share, and it doesn't matter if there are lots of free riders as long as the costs are covered--and that includes fair compensation for the programmers who do the actual work (and who are often weakly vested to boot, as things stand now).
ADSAuPR, atAJG, but I'll note that rms actually asked me a question that contributed to the development of the CSB idea. That was about 15 years ago and I still think it was an accident. He didn't care about money at the time and I haven't seen any evidence of his worrying about real-world money ever since.
Or even better if you have a better (AKA more practical or creative) solution approach. Even less evidence of that on Slashdot these years.
I can't tell if you are joking with some form of sarcasm or just ACKing my comment.
However, I do not think that would be a solution approach that would lead anywhere. In the specific context of Slashdot, I think the two most important approaches would be (1) Make the dimensions properly orthogonal and symmetric and (2) Make moderation reflexive and symmetric with a multidimensional form of karma. In more general contexts, I think the broadest brush I've painted with is currently called MEPR. One version is at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik....
Weird thought of the morning is that programming is a kind of meta-thinking. Leading to the conclusion that I was only a second tier programmer because I am too meta or not meta enough, or perhaps because I lack sufficient control when my thoughts move between levels. I've definitely convinced that the first tier programmers I've worked for and with are more clear and focused in their meta-thinking. (I see it as a related topic, though I'm not sure how to express the closeness of the relationship... I feel it, but I can't say it. Another aspect of my zen collapse?)
LOCK THEM UP!!! LOCK THEM UP!! LOCK THEM UP!! LOCK THEM UP!! .....
Excellent example of the brokenness of Slashdot's moderation. I can see the selfish (even authoritarian) basis for the "I disagree" negative mods, but what's the justification for insightful in such a tiny joke? A "funny" mod or two for the satirical aspects might have been justified, but I don't think nepotism, even flagrant nepotism, calls for the chanting mob.
However it does remind me of the parody protest I'd like to see, based on the chant of "Lock kids up, LOCK KIDS UP!" Obviously it would be a parody of a Trump rally, but as part of a protest against child separation, especially for asylum seekers. I think for maximum impact, the protesters should chant in "Trump face", with the short video building to a crescendo of rage before dissolving into mad screams. Each Trump face could be as simple as a piece of paper. I'd recommend an angry shouty closeup of Trump's face. Try to forget the image of a mob of enraged little Trumps!
Well done, I think that such a video might go viral. It might even cause some people to stop and think "Do I really want to be part of that sort of thing?"
The bottom line is that it is legal to seek asylum. Be quite amusing if Trump's supporters want to flee in panic because the next president turns out to be a Democratic anti-Trump with Trumpian tendencies, only to discover that Canada and Mexico have closed the borders and will separate them from their children if they seek asylum.
Z^-1
Same reply as to the other troll. This "discussion" appears to be concluded.
Nothing you wrote actually disagrees with the Paradox of Tolerance. Possible cases:
(1) You haven't read it.
(2) You can't understand it.
(3) Both.
I have no reason to tolerate your intolerance or to recommend additional readings. This "discussion" appears to be concluded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
No, this particular kind of lawsuit wasn't predicted by Popper circa 1945, but it's a great example of how it works in action.
I actually think Trump's so-called free-speech executive order is a slightly more sophisticated attack on tolerance. The real idea is to make is easier for intolerant people to attack tolerance. NOT to suggest that #PresidentTweety possesses the sophistication. The executive order was probably dictated over Trump's iPhone by Steve Bannon, that poster child of intolerance.
Next amusing thought of the day: Steve King is actively campaigning for Pence's job in 2020.
By the way, there are a number of cow-related Twitter accounts you might want to follow. https://twitter.com/search?q=%... is obvious, but if you search on Twitter for "DevinNunes" you'll see an entire herd of them.
Really, if they want to make something optional, how about a low-security airline for people who are sick and tired of all that anti-terrorist BS? Only catch is your clothes travel separately.
I just can't get over the sheer gall of it. Boeing was worried about it to the point that they developed two safety mechanisms. And then didn't enable them? How about making the safety features mandatory with an option to pay more to turn them off? You know, for the pilots and passengers who want the extra thrills.
Thanks for reminding me about the time I was using fake headers for the same purpose... That was with a plugin for Firefox, but I should research the Opera situation to see if I can understand what is going on. These days I mostly just want things to work without a lot of tweaking. (And if I'm actually seriously concerned about privacy, there's always Tor. Probably layers and levels of secrecy and anonymity beyond that, too.)
Hard for me to be sure, but I think Abagnale was invited to talk to our sociology (criminology?) class just after he got out of prison in America, probably circa 1977. It was around the time he was setting up his consulting business, I guess. I've always believed that "consultant" hides a multitude of sins, but I don't think that's the reason.
Hmm... Just thought of something I can check. I see. Quite possible it was the fall of 1977, but I really don't remember enough details to be sure. Though I can think of two people who might remember...
Yes, but don't forget the politicians saved MILLIONS of dollars by cutting the FAA budget to the bone! So efficient! The government is ALWAYS a waste of money!
Actually, I think the worst part of it is that the FAKE Republicans will now start blaming REAL president Obama for yet another failure of the government they have been sabotaging for years. Or is it worse that they will now insist that they can't let Boeing get the death penalty it deserves because of overriding political and nationalistic considerations.
Interesting post and deserved the mod points, though I'm unsure if either "interesting" or "insightful" really captures it.
I think you should have included the politicians who play political games with the funding of government agencies that have critical functions for public health. In addition, their pro-profit pro-cancer legislation (for the sake of bigger bribes) creates too-big-to-fail situations. I think Boeing itself has earned a corporate death penalty for the second crash, but it will never happen because of the political (and nationalistic) considerations.
My perverse solution approach involves pro-freedom anti-greedom taxation. But that's enough time for Slashdot, so for now I just bid you ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Extremely rare case. Not only were you modded into visibility, but you have a legitimate reason for anonymity.
If you were blowing the whistle on an actual settings page, your reason would be impeccable, but I have to peck at the satire defense and even lament that I was lucky to see the joke.
I think the google should have claimed they are just protecting the Chinese users of their services. After all, the Chinese are surely working on ways to track the ads people respond to. The google cannot absolutely guarantee the security of the clicks on ads.
If they were as cunning as they are accused of being, the Chinese government would encourage the google to show the VPN ads--after setting up some facade VPN companies and arranging for them to advertise heavily while targeting Chinese users. Much easier to collect the information the police want from the other end of that particular crime.
Only mention of "solution" in the discussion (before mine), but no details. Guessing from the context, but I am willing to wager some quatloos it was NOT a real solution and I would like to see more details. Actually, from reading your comment again, it is not clear that the google actually offered any pretense of a solution, which could certainly explain why you didn't offer a link to it.
So the corporate cancer google has become a monopoly, eh? What a shocking problem. Not.
In solution terms:
(1) The google can divide itself into competing companies.
(2) The parts improve faster because of REAL competition.
(3) PROFIT!
For simplicity, I left out a few intermediary steps. For example, the part about how we would get more freedom by having more choice (which can be implemented even if many (or even most) people are too lazy to be more free). Also the step where the parent holding company (Alphabet, which already exists) can keep most of the enlarged profits as long as the competing companies honor their "Chinese walls".
Now to search the discussion to see if there are any constructive solutions on display. First let me adjust my expectations a bit lower. Down to the level of today's Slashdot...
Now I'm confused? I use Opera every week or two for a website that will not work in my region with Firefox or Chrome or Safari, but Opera is still working? The article says that Opera removed the VPN last year?
I wish I could give you that other funny mod point you deserve. I think...
I feel like I shouldn't have to clarify my position on this, but...
I am NOT attacking the FAA. I think that there is a real need for external moderators, or you might prefer to call them honest referees, to keep track of how the players are playing the game. In the game of business for profit, that means the moderators (or referees) aren't driven by the profit motive uber alles. The FAA has clearly failed to keep Boeing from cheating on the rules in this case, and lots of people are dead as a result.
Part of my solution approach would be to increase competition and freedom. Less massive profit and fewer industry-dominating players and more controlled risks. The rate of progress might be a toss-up. I think more competition will lead to faster progress, but there are cases where huge research projects are required. Might be a legitimate need for some big government assistance in those cases, but in general I think smaller government is good, too, though the referee needs to be at least as strong as the strongest players. Yet another argument for smaller corporations so we can have smaller government.
Lots of similar comments in my earlier writings...
Thanks again, but you make it sound like too much trouble. I've pretty much trained myself to be extra careful around the <Backspace> key on Slashdot. Unfortunately, I've lost my habit of frequent saves to the clipboard...
To me it keeps coming back to the underlying problem of Slashdot's lack of a viable financial model. Hard to fund software maintenance or improvements in that situation. I'd put some of my money behind the charity share brokerage, if only the option existed.
I'm not sure about parts of your description, but I am pretty sure that it involves the focus getting outside of the input window. Nothing to do with either keypad (though I suspect the mouse), and I am using Firefox. The first thing I do when it happens is to attempt to return forward, but no can do. Pretty sure I'm using the classic view of Slashdot, but not sure how to check that.
Are you perhaps suggesting that I can recover the lost draft by some other method? For example, I haven't tried playing with the history. Maybe it appears as a recently closed tab, even though the tab of the lost information appears to remain open?
After accidentally confirming that the <Backspace> bug still exists on Slashdot and that it can destroy your draft without a trace...
My initial thought was that this angle was politically motivated. (I see that an AC may have opened the topic, but I don't care enough to forcibly open the AC's subject.) So I checked the schedule for the certification of the 737 MAX and confirmed that it happened in 2017, but early enough to blame on REAL president Obama. As long as you ignore any questions about FAKE Republicans (AKA Bolsheviks) working to kneecap Obama's entire administration from Day One. Saving money is a great excuse and even better when you can blame a Democrat for any little disasters that result.
I do think the FAA shares some of the blame, but (1) There's plenty of blame to go around, and (2) This appears to be the kind of software problem that is extremely difficult to trap and debug. At least it looks like complicated interactions between two systems that were supposed to be independent.
If it is a politically motivated angle of attack (not to be confused with the airplanes' angle of attack before their crashes), then I am curious who thought it up. But even if #PresidentTweety tweeted it, I'm sure someone gave it to him via his iPhone. Best input channel for most of his bad ideas.